I've just read a theory by alain zivie, who is excavating the tomb of maia, tut's wet nurse. He claims not only that she was his mother, but also, no less than meritaten herself. So far the only reason he gave was the intimate depictions of maia and tut. And the fact that the carvings make them look similar.

Why do these professionals release such opinions with no actual evidence? Sounds as absurd as finding Cleopatra's tomb at taposiris magna, and anything else that ever came out of hawass' mouth......_________________heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....

"... The Minister added that Maya herself may be the eldest sister of king "Tutankhamun", carrying the name of "Meritaten", pointing to one scene in the royal tomb at "Tell el-Amarna" that represents the burial of "Meketaten" the eldest daughter of King "Akhenaten", at the same scene "Meritaten" appears carrying a little baby and suckling it, and this baby is suggested to be King "Tutankhamun". ..."

It is the same scene which Marc Gabolde brings as one evidence for Nefertiti = Mother of Tutankhaton because of the (by him) reconstructed inscription:

I have yet to read the original where Meritaten is named as mother to Tutankhamun. All I ca find are second hand news reporting the claim of Meritaten = Maia. Anyone has the link to an English translation of the Zivie publication?

I guess Tutankhamun as the baby in the Amarna Royal Tomb is a possibility. But why would Meritaten lose her royal titles?

Wait... So Meritaten is the Younger Lady (YL)? Because DNA from Hawass et al. confirms YL is mother to Tutankahmun.

In my view, we have also here at the interpretation of the DNA analyzes the same problem as in determining the age with forensic anatomical methods (KV 55 and others). Otherwise I can not explain the different, by DNA experts unchallenged coexisting interpretations by Egyptologists (---> Gabolde at Harvard Univerity) of one and the same results?! And again comes to me the statement made by gay Robins in GM 45 (1981) to mind...

I think there are too many factors against this identification, not least that for it to be correct the DNA analysis of the royal family would need to be completely reconsidered - throwing into doubt the identification of all the mummies bar Tut, Yuya and Thuya.

That aside, it is interesting to think that Tutankhamun could be a son of Meritaten and Akhenaten, but that would require Nefertiti to be a daughter of Amenhotep III and Tiye for the DNA not to be dismissed (KV35YL is definitely Tut's mother).

Alternatively Tut could be a son of Smenkhkare and Meritaten, but again this would require the latter to be the daughter of a brother - sister marriage, and the problem with that and the previous scenario is that Nefertiti is never referred to as a king's sister or daughter.

So much about the Amarna lineage is still unknown because the crucial missing link..one of Akhenaten & Nefertiti's daughters, is still missing.

I personally believe as of now that if Smenkhare was an actual individual, and a male, then he may be a youngest son of Amenhotep III & Tiye. Therefore, the younger brother of Akhenaten & heir to the throne. And Tutankhamun was Smenkhare's son. Pure speculation of course, but all of this is until we get more answers. I still maintain that there seems to be no hard concrete evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten ever had a son, let alone that Tutankhamun was a son of Akhenaten._________________Beautiful are the blessings of Aten

I personally believe as of now that if Smenkhare was an actual individual, and a male, then he may be a youngest son of Amenhotep III & Tiye...

I still maintain that there seems to be no hard concrete evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten ever had a son, let alone that Tutankhamun was a son of Akhenaten.

Why? What evidence is there for Smenkhare as a brother to Akhenaten? What little evidence there is from the Amarna period... Nothing points out to Smenkhare as a son to Amenhotep III or a father to Tutankhamun. If there is no hard concrete evidenxe that Akhenaten was the father, there is still less the other way around pointing to Smenkhare.

Direct royal succesion in the case of Smenkhare if he is a male is pure speculation.

At least for Akhenaten we know he was a son of Amenhote III. We do not know that for Smenkhare (dont even know if he was a female or male).

I personally believe as of now that if Smenkhare was an actual individual, and a male, then he may be a youngest son of Amenhotep III & Tiye...

I still maintain that there seems to be no hard concrete evidence whatsoever that Akhenaten ever had a son, let alone that Tutankhamun was a son of Akhenaten.

Why? What evidence is there for Smenkhare as a brother to Akhenaten? What little evidence there is from the Amarna period... Nothing points out to Smenkhare as a son to Amenhotep III or a father to Tutankhamun. If there is no hard concrete evidenxe that Akhenaten was the father, there is still less the other way around pointing to Smenkhare.

Direct royal succesion in the case of Smenkhare if he is a male is pure speculation.

At least for Akhenaten we know he was a son of Amenhote III. We do not know that for Smenkhare (dont even know if he was a female or male).

The recent DNA examinations suggest the body from KV55 is a son of Amenhotep III and the father of Tutankhamun, right? Anatomical examinations of the same body suggest this individual was aged around 18-23, which is way too young to be Akhenaten. (Since we know he had a daughter when he came to the throne, which means he had to have been at least 12 at that time, because that's the earliest possible age a boy can become a father. Combined with his 17 regnal years that means Akhenaten had to have been at the very least 29 years at the time of his death.) Even though the most recent forensic examination estimates 'KV55' to be older, it acknowledges that most of the body's anatomy points towards a younger age, with the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, a disease also attested in 'KV55''s son, Tutankhamun. Additionally, the DNA of the fetuses from Tutankhamun's tomb says 'KV55' is not their grandfather on both sides, which he would have to be if he was Akhenaten and Ankhesenamun was the mother.
And if we have evidence to rule out Akhenaten (as I believe we do), what other option than Smenchkare do we have as an identification for the KV55 body?

The recent DNA examinations suggest the body from KV55 is a son of Amenhotep III and the father of Tutankhamun, right? Anatomical examinations of the same body suggest this individual was aged around 18-23, which is way too young to be Akhenaten. ...

I find it again and again strange and surprising that on the one hand, the aDNA results without a doubt are accepted and the by the same team at the same time put forward age determinations are rejected...

Vangu Vegro wrote:

... (Since we know he had a daughter when he came to the throne, ...

Do "we"? From where? I just know that Amenhotep IV in his earliest known representations as king in Theban Tombs without wife or children appears, accompanied only by his mother Queen Teje (in position where we would normally expect the wife of the king).

Vangu Vegro wrote:

... the one feature pointing towards an age old enough to be Akhenaten being the spine, which can alternatively be explained as a symptom of scoliosis, ...

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.

Vangu Vegro wrote:

... Additionally, the DNA of the fetuses from Tutankhamun's tomb says 'KV55' is not their grandfather on both sides, which he would have to be if he was Akhenaten and Ankhesenamun was the mother. ...

Apart from the fact that for the presence of these fetuses in the tomb quite other approaches to interpretation than the fatherhood by Tutankhamun in Egyptology exist ... Was`nt it, as I remember, only for one of the two possible to extract aDNA material? And even here it was clearly unsafe, right?_________________Ägyptologie - Forum (German)

I find it again and again strange and surprising that on the one hand, the aDNA results without a doubt are accepted and the by the same team at the same time put forward age determinations are rejected...

Well, it's possible to accept data as being correct but disagree with an interpretation of that data, isn't it?
In any case, what I find strange and surprising is how a forensic team can find clear evidence of a younger age all over a body (and acknowledge that they did!), but then come to a different conclusion based on a single part of the body that could be interpreted as pointing towards an older age.

Quote:

Do "we"? From where?

Meretaten appears on reliefs from the Aten temple at Karnak, so she was clearly alive when they were carved.

Quote:

As you say: it can ... But it don`t have to. Especially if it do not match to the rest of the archaeological findings in KV 55.

With all respect, the archeological evidence in KV55 is such a hodgepodge that it's easy to jump to conclusions like Davis did when he found the tomb.
Besides, all the archeological evidence can prove is that at some point, people thought they were dealing with Akhenaten's body. And it wouldn't have been the first time they were wrong...

Quote:

Apart from the fact that for the presence of these fetuses in the tomb quite other approaches to interpretation than the fatherhood by Tutankhamun in Egyptology exist ... Was`nt it, as I remember, only for one of the two possible to extract aDNA material? And even here it was clearly unsafe, right?

Are you trying to say here that the fetuses may not have been Tutankhamun's? If so, the DNA clearly indicates that they are... But in any case, DNA was extracted from both fetuses and both have preserved alleles at locus D7S820, which we can compare to other mummies. The first fetus has 10 and 13, the second 6 and 15. Tutankhamun has 10 and 15 (one of each of which was passed down to each fetus), so the mother of the fetuses would have to have provided the 6 and 13. But 'KV55' has 15 and 15 at this locus, so there's no way he could been the father of the mother of the fetuses. Either KV55 is not Akhenaten or Ankhesenamun is not the mother (or both).